February 19, 2010

I'll be on the "Week in Review" show with Joy Cardin on Wisconsin Public Radio at 8 a.m. Central Time (9 ET). This is the show where I'm on the right and someone else — today it will be Tony Palmieri, another professor — is on the left, and we talk about various issues from the past week.

Go here to listen on-line live. And you'll be able to listen to the archived show here, later. It's a call-in show, so feel free to call 1-800-642-1234. You don't have to be from Wisconsin to call. (But if you're in Madison, use the local number: 263-1890). You can also e-mail questions to talk@wpr.org. Come on, make me answer your question, in real time.

Rd...The rioting and drooling teabaggers could not get thru security, so the local NPR outlet settled for competence. That's their story and they are sticking to it. I expect we will hear a stylish, feminine version of Rush Limbaugh. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Most of what this guy is saying, most recently his assertion that it's "fee speech, not free speech," sounds like it was meant to be chanted by a mob of hippies, not discussed cordially by mature adults.

Good to hear you on the radio, Professor. It was an exhibition, not a competition, though, right? Tony sure exhibited the lefty talking points. Pity there wasn't more time to skewer them all. Really, complaining about some "corporate welfare" to build the nation's first nuclear power plant in decades without mentioning the ethanol or wind power subsidies? High speed rail is "needed" between Milwaukee and Madison without any thought whatsoever given to the cost/benefit ratio? Same old same old. Thank you, Wisconsin Peoples Radio.

Wow, after listening to you on Joy's show and then reading the blog about the show, I'm disturbed.

First, Professor Althouse, I'm disappointed that you spout off info. about topics you apparently know little about. You should look into how energy is produced in the U.S. and the actual problems with nuclear energy. We don't import much fossil fuels for energy production in this country outside of that energy produced in automobiles. In other words, we produce our own electricity in this country, the majority of which comes from coal we mine right here in the U.S. We don't import too much of it from foreign countries. As for nuclear energy, we didn't give up on technology and, thus, nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is not competitive with coal-fired energy. This is one of the biggest reasons we don't use it. This is also why the government heavily subsidizes the industry and is now going to subsidize the construction of new nuclear plants. These things are pretty much U.S. energy policy 101.

As for your bloggers, the wasted storage problem has not been solved. Yucca Mountain is not a solution. We have already created enough waste to fill the Yucca Mountain storage facility. Is the storage problem solved if the facility would already be filled?

I'm amazed at the audacity with which you and your bloggers discuss such topics they know nothing about.

Nuclear energy is not competitive with coal-fired energy. This is one of the biggest reasons we don't use it.

Yes because coal is cheap and abundant. Then again its dirty, causes pollution and is killing the fuzzy polar bears with man-made global warming.

I'm a pragmatist by nature. We live in a modern 21st century society that has high energy needs. I'm cool with coal but if its killing the fuzzy polar bears and we need to stop then we need a suitable alternative and you can't power Chicago or NY with windmills.

Althouse f'ing rocked on that tape. I especially liked the way you defended 1st amendment rights. Plus you are confident enough to admit when you lack sufficient info on a subject [i.e. the economics of high speed rail].

Your opponent thinks the majority of people oppose nukes. I bet he still beats his meat while watching that Julia Roberts movie.

That was a very smooth broadcast by both of you. The only ideas that were fresh came thru Ann Althouse, and the other fellow was stuck mouthing 1990s memes to his believers. That was a very good counter on the High Speed Rail myth. Of course everybody is for free services and jobs too. But paying for a boondoggle like that in Wisconsin would be like the passenger mile cost of manned missions to the Moon. If it is so easy and free, then why not do an entire web of lines to all cities, said the subtle Professor. The "Billions" are never spent . All these amount to are slush funds to spoon out one more contract for studies to friends and local government politicians in exchange for contributions back...forever with no actual trains in sight.

As for your bloggers, the wasted storage problem has not been solved. Yucca Mountain is not a solution. We have already created enough waste to fill the Yucca Mountain storage facility. Is the storage problem solved if the facility would already be filled?

Even the capacity is limited by politics (they set an arbitrary cap), not reality.

Coal mining kills people. I think it's very easy to forget the human cost of coal mining, only because the deaths are a trickling drip drip drip and not an overwhelming 100s of people (unless a slag dam fails).

Whenever I read arguments for 'Clean Coal' (as if), I never see mining deaths/impairments mentioned.

Phil King, How can anyone take your assertions about energy policy seriously if you do not know the difference between a blogger and a commenter? Further, by commenting here you have now joined the group that you deride.

@ Phil King...Using the good sense of a mere commenter, I would ask you why Obama wants to stop coal electicical generation plants. Is not that a CO2 emmissions issue to him? And stipulating that CO2 is harmless, do we not still have an air quality problem from massive coal combustion containing sulfer in its emissions? Please educate us on the dangers of nuclear power generation that rule out its use, other than a Chernoble melt down fear.

I guess I opened a can of worms now. First, my knowledge of the difference between a blogger and a commenter has nothing to do with my comments on energy policies. Just as a person's insanity has nothing to do with his claims that the earth is round. The fact is, the earth is round and it doesn't matter whether the person making the claim is insane. Thus, your argument is fallacious.

As for coal mining deaths, clean coal, etc. I never claimed coal is the solution. I was pointing out that it is cheaper than nuclear energy and we get it in the U.S. I was arguing against Professor Althouse's comments, not which direction U.S. energy production should take. In fact, if a carbon tax were placed on coal-fired energy generation to account for the true costs of its energy production, wind energy would then become cheaper than coal and nuclear energy would be more competitive with coal energy, but still more expensive than wind energy.

As for storage of nuclear waste being a political issue, this is true, as are most issues. This says nothing. The current storage facility in Yucca Mountain can only hold the waste we have already produced. Could another storage facility be constructed/tested? Of course, but if this needs to occur, then the problem is not solved, it's on going. We can't just dig a hole and bury the waste for future generations to deal with. The waste is very hazardous.

Do people die in mine shafts? Yes. Do they die from exposure to radiation when mining/transporting uranium? Yes. Both are dangerous and bad energy alternatives. By the time new nuclear power plants are up and running, we could have invested in more efficient solar and wind energy generation, as well as energy storage and transmission.

I apologize for the rashness of my previous comments, but please do not take my comments further than they go. I didn't claim coal was the answer. I hate it more than most. I was just pointing out that we didn't leave nuclear energy behind simply because we were throwing away technology. I was also pointing out that we don't generate our electricity from foreign fossil fuels. These are two of Professor Althouse's claims and they are both untrue.

Again :) I don't know how my "understanding of the Internets" has anything to do with my comments about energy policy. Should I call into question all of your comments because you don't use your real name? Ridiculous :)

Let's stay on topic here. Attacking my understanding of the "Internets" is fallacious arguing and says more about those using this technique than it does about me.

I've heard really good things about this book and heard its author interviewed by Dennis Prager several times.

Amongst the book's other surprising claims is the assertion that nuclear waste which must be stored is much, much smaller and more easily managed than most people realize.

Here's a little blurb:"- Uranium is more energy-dense than any other fuel. If you got all of your electricity for your lifetime solely from nuclear power, your share of the waste would fit in a single soda can. If you got all your electricity from coal, your share would come to 146 tons: 69 tons of solid waste that would fit into six rail cars and 77 tons of carbon dioxide that would contribute to accelerated global warming.

- A person living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant receives less radiation from it in a year than you get from eating one banana. Someone working in the U.S. Capitol Building is exposed to more radioactivity than a uranium miner.

- Spent nuclear fuel is always shielded and isolated from the public. Annual waste from one typical reactor could fit in the bed of a standard pickup. The retired fuel from 50 years of U.S. reactor operation could fit in a single football field; it amounts to 77,000 tons. A large coal-fired plant produces ten times as much solid waste in one day, much of it hazardous to health. We discard 179,000 tons of batteries annually--they contain toxic heavy metals."

What we really should be doing with nuclear "waste" is reprocessing it. We are throwing away so much energy. And after extracting that energy, we are left with something that is easier to deal with. We are still being screwed by Jimmy Carter.

He certainly had no response to your First Amendment argument other than decrying the abuses of "the (invisible?) Man".

I also liked your measured response to the high speed rail topic whose benefits continue to wane: Jobs-from Gov. Doyle's 13,000 to, we meant 4,700 FTEs in construction, to 55 permanent positions. Transit time-1:14, like, um, it is now by car? Cost-$20-$33 one-way AFTER a Federal subsidy of $20.75 per estimated first-year passenger (and state/county/municipal costs of ?). Like you said, "who doesn't like to spend someone else's money?", but can we at least TALK about a cost/benefit analysis? He lost all credibility on the subject with "we can't be serious about global warming until we have high speed rail". Gave me even MORE potential reason to oppose the train! :)

AllenS, I wasn't just referring to your name specifically, but all of the commenters' names, including mine, which is not my real name. My point is, my character, name, appearance, knowledge the terms blogger vs. commenter, etc., has nothing to do with my comments about energy. Also, jumping from my mistake about the term blogger to my lack of Internet knowledge is also a leap. I grew up on the Internet and am much more familiar than most. I can rattle off terms that most people know nothing about either (epistemology, metaphysics, essence, forms, universals, Geist, aesthetics, etc.), but really have no idea what this has to do with energy policy. I did not start the debate about linguistics or philology and think it's rather absurd on this blog.

However, if arguing against me ad hominem or by using strawman arguments, then by all means, be my guest.

As for Kensington and others that want to argue against my points, rather than something else, great!

AllenS: We do import some electrical energy from Canada, but not much. We don't even use that much hydroelectric energy when compared to our total energy generation.

Kensington: That sounds like an interesting book. Does it talk about how we would be able to generate so much energy from uranium? Is it through increased enrichment or are we already producing that much energy from it? If through enrichment, this becomes more and more energy intensive as the process continues and the leftover waste is far more radioactive than what we currently have. This is why the government decided not to enrich it further in the first place. Other countries do it though, such as France. Also, the radioactivity of everything that comes into contact with the radioactive materials also must be taken into consideration. For example, the nuclear plants themselves are radioactive and when retired must be taken into account for storage purposes. It's not any easy solution.

traditionalguy: Chernobyl is not the only risk of nuclear energy generation. The uranium doesn't just show up ready to produce energy. The entire process prior to energy generation needs to be taken into account, along with the energy generation processes, storage processes, and plant retirement. Also, nuclear power is, relatively, new and hasn't been used for a long period of time. Complicated systems like nuclear plants have very good safety records in the near term, but just like other complicated systems, it takes a long time for us to truly understand the risks associated with such technologies. Finally, nuclear plants still emit toxins, reactors leak, etc. Even France, which uses it more than most, if not all, other countries, experienced leaking into their water supplies in just the last couple years.

A person living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant receives less radiation from it in a year than you get from eating one banana. Someone working in the U.S. Capitol Building is exposed to more radioactivity than a uranium miner.

Bananas expose you to radiation???!!

How about the radition exposure just from traveling in our security enhanced airports or being screened to go into public places.

Didn't have time this morning to listen. Will do during work.

Trying to pit 'right' against 'left' is boring if the parties speaking are both idealogues. It is then, just a mindless repetition of canned talking points with neither person giving any real thought to their own speech or listening to the other's points.

Since Althouse isn't a right leaning ideologue, I expect to be interested.

Agreed that coal mining can be a dangerous job (especially if your Chinese, apparently). But all power production entails risk. I'd counter that the risks you 'never see mentioned' are in wind turbine construction and operation .

Professor Althouse: I tuned in live yesterday. Direct, incisive commentary -- you beat him like a cheap rug.

I listened to the audio stream today for the 1st Amendment discussion again. Just as good the 2nd time through. Except still not enough, you were just getting warmed up! How about a "1st Amendment" episode on Talking Heads? THAT would be quite a conversation. Just 1st Amendment, nothing else.

Joy Cardin did not try very hard to hide her general agreement with Palmieri. Who clearly does not comprehend the notion of free speech, and needed to be hit even harder on that.

Nukes are not price-competitive only because of regulatory issues. What Obama did with the Georgia nukes was to indicate that the regulators will not be quite as obstructive, at least for those two power plants.

Since Kensington recommended a book upthread, I'll recommend another: The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear, by Petr Beckmann. Old, but, since nuclear development has been frozen in the USA for 30 years, not obsolete at all.